memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek: Discovery/Prerelease archive
Twitter reaction I think that these additions should be removed. We really do not need to know how every single Trek personality on Twitter reacted to this news - they tell us nothing about the series itself, nor are they from people actually connected with it. We should not be collecting random thoughts (nor !) about this series; we will have enough to cover in due course. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:06, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :I completely agree with this statement, Michael. Tom (talk) 17:31, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::I can see the value of one or two of the statements, but reworked into info about the series (ie, Shatner's comment about this being on the table since 2008/09). -- sulfur (talk) 17:32, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :::Some of this is relevant, and policy does allow these to be included. - 19:24, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :The important word is "Some". Shatner, Wolfe, and maybe Auberjonois, sure, as their comments have a value for the article. But the others? Do we list everyone who worked on a Trek project and is now commenting on social media about this? Tom (talk) 19:29, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::::Definitely worth a quote from each one. There's nothing in the policies and guidelines that would oppose this idea. Why choose to be incomplete, and therefore breach the emphasis on article length and comprehensiveness that is in the policies and guidelines? Once again, this seems a personal attack perpetrated by the MA admins against me; I feel quite sure that, if it had been anyone else who had added this info, there would be absolutely no problem with it. Thanks, guys! -- Defiant (talk) 19:50, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :::::I oppose posting statements of 'excitement'; if the statement adds something of note (like Auberjonois stating the series won't have him and Visitor) then yes. I would say right now Intiraymi's and Masterson's statements don't add much. I'm not seeing any personal attacks here, so let's stop the accusations. 31dot (talk) 20:41, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::::::I'm sorry you feel that way Defiant and to see you go since you're one of our best contributors. I didn't know about the animosity between you and the admins btw. I personally don't think all of those reactions are worth noting although in some cases they're worthwhile especially the one noting how being produced for CBS All Access might allow the show to have a bigger budget. -- Alientraveller (talk) 21:24, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::::I appreciate your comments, Alientraveller; thank you. I'm also sorry for overreacting, in acceptance of the assumption that no personal attack was intended. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything, though; sorry it came off that way. When adding those notes, I expected they would not only be accepted by the community but also liked, as I was aiming for comprehensiveness, which I thought was welcomed on MA (my ultimate goal absolutely being to help with the writing of the articles). I'm sorry this wasn't the case. There's clearly a discorrelation between what I expect will be welcomed by the community and what actually is. Is the only way to figure out the differences really to do so by trial and error? Ultimately, I accept it is the will of the community to deem some of the Twitter reactions I've posted here as superfluous to the article. -- Defiant (talk) 08:46, November 4, 2015 (UTC) ::::Btw, I personally think the Robert Hewitt Wolfe quote – that he'll be too busy to write for the series – to be the most interesting comment of the lot. Yet, it's been removed. So, I'm clearly not understanding what is found to be "notable". Some further guidelines about this would likely help. -- Defiant (talk) 08:58, November 4, 2015 (UTC) ::::::I had no problem with Wolfe's comment as it added something(he won't be working on it). It's just the couple from people who tweeted 'excitement'. 31dot (talk) 09:48, November 4, 2015 (UTC) ::::Okay. Got it. Thanks for the explanation and, on second thought, I actually agree that those notes aren't really all that noteworthy. Removed notes I've removed the following notes: :Manu Intiraymi responded very excitedly to the announcement of the new series. :Chase Masterson, on her Twitter feed, reacted with amazement at the announcement of the new series. -- Defiant (talk) 08:19, November 5, 2015 (UTC) Green screen promo shoot pictures The articles that feature them deliberately say that they're not going to name the camera operator who posted them online until they get his permission to do so. So does that mean delete until we do know? http://www.treknews.net/2016/03/17/photos-from-new-star-trek-all-access-series/ -- LauraCC (talk) 18:14, March 22, 2016 (UTC) Weird Contrast this: :He noted "We are not subject to broadcast standards and practices. So we can have profanity if we choose; not that I want to see a Star Trek with lots of profanity. But we can certainly be more graphic than you would on broadcast network television." http://www.moviefone.com/2016/06/23/bryan-fuller-star-trek-interview/ with this: :The fan production must be family friendly and suitable for public presentation. Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco... So does that mean that the new series will violate the fan film rules on content, too? Kind of odd. How do you want to brand Trek; edgy or family friendly? Make up your mind. *confused* -- LauraCC (talk) 16:06, June 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Why confused? The one is a studio production. The other is not. The rules need not be the same. -- sulfur (talk) 17:55, June 24, 2016 (UTC) I just wonder why it matters so much to them. Another way of differentiating between canon and fanon? Even kid-friendly TAS had the characters drinking alcoholic beverages (unless somebody put Sunny D in an old Saurian brandy bottle). -- LauraCC (talk) 17:58, June 24, 2016 (UTC) ::They can control what they make in terms of content, in terms of presentation, etc. They can control what Kirk acts like (ie, is he a hard drinker, smoker, etc?). A fan film? Not so much. So, limit what can be shown, and that's how they control the images they own. -- sulfur (talk) 18:04, June 24, 2016 (UTC) Oh. I imagine there will be some amendments (proposed, if not enacted) in the coming months as fans react to the stipulations. -- LauraCC (talk) 18:05, June 24, 2016 (UTC) Title Is there any indication that this is going to have any sort of title other than "Star Trek"? That's what the teaser called it. I don't know if I'm necessarily now calling for this to be renamed but as of right now I don't see a reason why this won't end up being titled "Star Trek (series)" or something like it. 31dot (talk) 01:11, June 25, 2016 (UTC) :I'm pulling for Star Trek: The Online Series, or TOS for short. I can't see how that would be an issue. ;p :It wouldn't surprise me if they just go with simply Star Trek, anything to avoid the dreaded colon, but the name is probably the last thing being decided, since I bet the marketing department has more say with that than anyone else working on the show. We should still wait for "offical" confirmation before making any changes with the title, but disambiguations like: web, online, 2017, CBS, etc. will almost have to be used instead of, or in conjugation with, "series," since TOS and TAS have equal claim to that one. - 04:49, June 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Of those, I prefer "2017", partly owing to the small amount of characters necessary when linking. "Web" is a bit too colloquial-sounding, imo. And I think CBS technically holds the rights to all the series, so using that wouldn't distinguish this series from the others, really. Also, we already have the article namespace "Star Trek (2009)", so the "2017" idea fits that mold. But as always, of course, I'm happy to go with whatever the community opts for. Just my two pence worth (the value of which has actually decreased due to the EU referendum! ;p) -- Defiant (talk) 08:20, June 25, 2016 (UTC) :::Plus, it's not limited exclusively to the All Access; they said (somewhere) that in some countries other than the US, it might air on TV networks. -- LauraCC (talk) 13:21, June 25, 2016 (UTC) Announced I would move this to the title, but I'm sure there are a few technical things to do before that, that I am likely not aware of fully. I'm also not sure exactly how it should be structured(Star Trek: Discovery?) 31dot (talk) 00:24, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :What about the shorthand? DIS? DSC? Digifiend (talk) 12:03, July 24, 2016 (UTC) ::It is indeed "Star Trek: Discovery", and the abbreviation, as it says in this article, is "DSC". -- Defiant (talk) 13:21, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :::Unless its a goof the registration NCC 1031 would place the series chronologically between ENT and TOS rather than 24th century. The showrunners have also admitted they used Ralph McQuarrie Phase II designs for the ship and that the legal issues surrounding that have not yet been resolved. -- Watcherzero (talk) 16:20, July 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Just because the ship has that registry doesn't mean anything significant, really; for example, the predates yet has a longer registry number. Even if registry numbers were chronological, the Discovery could be displaced in time in the new series (I'm hoping that happens, actually). -- Defiant (talk) 16:40, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :::Nova Experimental (NX) numbers are different, they are shipyard registry rather than Starfleet commissioned ship (Nova Construction Contract) registry, that particular discrepancy though quite easily explained that as the programme is the development of a Warp 5 capable ship NX01 ordered in 2140 and her sisters are the final product and others are developmental prototypes ordered after commencement of the project with Enterprise launching in 2151 and Columbia in 2154 . You can also see this in the 24th century where prototype ships carrying NX numbers are generally a couple of thousand higher than corresponding NCC numbers of the same class suggesting over the years not all NX ships were ultimately commissioned as well as more NCC numbers being reused beyond the Enterprise. Of course the Franklin was also from the new Movie continuity not the prime continuity of the upcoming series and most fans are agreed its just a wink to Star Trek Enterprise rather than canon. -- Watcherzero (talk) 01:53, July 25, 2016 (UTC) ::A lot of what you're saying isn't canonical. What do the terms "Nova Experimental" and "Nova Construction Contract" come from?! Afaik, it's not entirely established what the letters "NCC" actually stand for, and different sources will give different definitions. -- Defiant (talk) 02:00, July 25, 2016 (UTC) ::::Bryan Fuller has now confirmed that the registry number is an intentional clue as to the period in which the show will be set. Watcherzero (talk) 23:55, August 5, 2016 (UTC) Which is why it was added to the article. 31dot (talk) 10:10, August 6, 2016 (UTC) Uniforms I'm putting all my quatloos now on this show retconing out the the TOS pilots uniforms. - 04:11, August 12, 2016 (UTC) :No bet. I think the question is if they will give some sort of explanation or just pretend they were always like that. I'm also not entirely sure they will give the Discovery its own uniform patch, based on the logo. 31dot (talk) 10:15, August 12, 2016 (UTC) ::Given we saw so little of 23rd century Starfleet, maybe the Discovery was an experimental ship or assigned to a special department and was the first to get the "new" uniforms (the iconic red/gold/blue), while the rest of the fleet stayed with the old uniforms for another ten years? I mean, the TNG uniform was phased out on Deep Space 9 in 2369, but some people still used it in 2374, when generally most of Starfleet had already gone through another full uniform change! The fleet definitely isn't consistent here, so a cooked up explanation wouldn't be too stupid. Actually, we never saw anything of Starfleet apart of the Enterprise prior to 2266, so for all we know this was an Enterprise-only uniform. Kennelly (talk) 22:06, August 17, 2016 (UTC) Casting How much do you want to bet that the entire cast will be made up of members of the LGBT community? For example, back in the day, there was a story going around that Kirk, Scott, and McCoy had a thing going with each other. Now, here it is 2016, and we can now make that happen on this new show. George.e.pierson (talk) 19:55, August 14, 2016 (UTC) Hero ship reference in Apparently, this show's hero ship may have been mentioned before, but there's no page for it. https://kimikomura19.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/reference-to-u-s-s-discovery-in-tos/ Even though notify might simply mean " make a note of it - tell everyone we discovered Gothos", it could be retconned to be a ship, unless the Discovery had been destroyed by then. --LauraCC (talk) 18:08, August 25, 2016 (UTC) DSC over DIS? I've seen alot of other places use DSC as the abbreviation for Discovery, including some official and/or reliable sources, but this page seems to use DIS instead. Is there a reason for this, or am I just being dumb and that's actually right. Wixelt (talk) 00:09, September 16, 2016 (UTC) :Consistency with out three-letter short-forms. :We've chosen DIS because, like ENT (Enterprise) and VOY (Voyager), it is the first three letters of the name of the show. Do note that CBS pushed "VGR" as the short form for Voyager for a number of years before beginning to use VOY. We aren't too worried if they use DSC or DIS, but MA has chosen to go with "DIS", simply because it matches our current naming style. -- sulfur (talk) 00:13, September 16, 2016 (UTC) ::Yes, but unlike VOY, the word "dis" has an inconvenient meaning. If CBS were to start using it anyway, that would be their problem, but so far they've avoided it (along with the other unfortunate coinage, ST:D). Why should MA favor consistency over a sense of propriety? That's why I've been putting DSC into the infobox in parallel, so the reader isn't tricked into using DIS if it is the official abbreviation they want. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 10:07, March 4, 2017 (UTC) Reports on Yeoh's role There are as-yet unconfirmed reports that Yeoh is playing a character called Han Bo of the USS Shenzhou. Is this enough to put in the article? Someone already created a page about the character and ship which I deleted as premature. 31dot (talk) 15:02, November 24, 2016 (UTC) :I think it's enough to add to the article, yeah. --Defiant (talk) 18:26, November 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Currently the article about the starship Discovery itself redirects here, so maybe that would also be a good idea for the time being, redirects of "Han Bo" and "USS Shenzhou"? Kennelly (talk) 18:47, November 24, 2016 (UTC) :::We know the main ship is the Discovery. We have no real confirmation as to the others. -- sulfur (talk) 23:58, November 24, 2016 (UTC)